Proposals by Other Countries To Amend Appendices to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
[Federal Register: June 6, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 109)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31054-31061]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06jn97-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
Proposals by Other Countries To Amend Appendices to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in certain
animals and plants. Species for which such trade is controlled are
listed in Appendices I, II, and III to CITES. Any country that is a
Party to CITES may propose amendments to Appendix I or II for
consideration by the other Parties.
This notice announces decisions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on negotiating positions to be taken by the United
States delegation with regard to proposals submitted by Parties other
than the United States. The proposals will be considered at the tenth
regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to be held in
Harare, Zimbabwe, June 9-20, 1997. This notice announces a deadline for
public recommendations regarding potential reservations that could be
taken by the United States on any listing decisions by the Parties at
COP10. It also announces a potential amendment to the proposal
submitted by the United States, and discussed in previous Federal
Register notices, to include map turtles in Appendix II, and a revision
to the proposal of the United States (also in the previous Federal
Register notices) to include goldenseal in Appendix II.
DATES: Proposals mentioned in this notice are scheduled to be discussed
along with preliminary votes by Party countries in committee on the
weekdays from approximately June 11 to 17, 1997. Final votes in plenary
sessions are likely on June 18 and 19, 1997, without discussion unless
one-third of the Parties support the reopening of discussion on
specific proposals. Any of these proposals that are adopted will enter
into effect 90 days after the close of COP10 (i.e., on September 18,
1997). Public comments regarding potential reservations to be taken by
the United States on listings adopted by the Parties at COP10 need to
be received by the Service's Office of Scientific Authority by August
15, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence concerning this notice to Chief,
Office of Scientific Authority; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750;
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Fax number: 703-358-2276. Comments and other
information received are available for public inspection by
appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, at the
Arlington, Virginia address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.,
telephone: 703-358-1708, fax: 703-358-2276.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
CITES regulates import, export, re-export, and introduction from
the sea of certain animal and plant species. Species for which trade is
controlled are included in one of three Appendices. Appendix I includes
species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by
international trade. Appendix II includes species that, although not
necessarily now threatened with extinction, may become so unless the
trade is strictly controlled. It also lists species that must be
subject to regulation in order that trade in other currently or
potentially threatened species may be brought under effective control
(e.g., because of difficulty in distinguishing specimens of currently
or potentially threatened species from those other species). Appendix
III includes species that any Party country identifies as being subject
to regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of preventing or
restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the cooperation of
other Parties to control trade.
Any Party country may propose amendments to Appendices I and II for
consideration at meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The
proposal must be communicated to the CITES Secretariat at least 150
days before the meeting. The Secretariat must then consult the other
Parties and appropriate intergovernmental agencies, and communicate
their responses to all Parties no later than 30 days before the
meeting. Proposals submitted to the Secretariat are subsequently
distributed to all Parties. The proposals submitted by the United
States or cosponsored with other Parties for consideration at COP10
were addressed in the April 16, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 18559).
After preliminary review of other Parties' proposals received for
consideration at COP10, the Service announced the proposals and invited
comments on tentative negotiating positions in the April 17, 1997,
Federal Register (62 FR 18731).
This notice announces the negotiating positions to be taken by the
United States delegation on the proposals submitted by the Parties
other than the United States for consideration at the forthcoming
meeting of the Parties. It also announces a potential amendment to a
proposal submitted by the United States and discussed in previous
Federal Register notices of August 26, 1996 (61 FR 44324) and April 16,
1997 (62 FR 18559), to include all species of map turtles (genus
Graptemys) in Appendix II, and an amendment to the proposal by the
United States (also in the previous Federal Register notices) to
include goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) in Appendix II. The decisions
announced in this notice represent formal guidance to the delegation.
Although it is neither
[[Page 31055]]
practical nor in the best interests of the United States to establish
inflexible negotiating positions, the delegation will seek to obtain
agreement of the Conference of the Parties with these positions unless
new information becomes available (see Summary of Positions). Decisions
on negotiating positions on resolutions and agenda items to be
considered at COP10 are presented in a separate Federal Register
notice.
Proposals on Map Turtles and Goldenseal by the United States
On January 10, 1997, the United States submitted a proposal to the
CITES Secretariat, for consideration at COP10, to include all species
of map turtles (genus Graptemys) in Appendix II. This proposal, like
all proposals submitted by the United States, was developed through a
public process and first suggested formally in an August 26, 1996,
Federal Register notice (61 FR 44324). As a result of input received,
the final proposal was modified such that three of the twelve species
would be included in Appendix II only because of similarity of
appearance to the other nine species. The Service's argument in
reaching that position was that, even though those three species
(Graptemys geographica, G. pseudogeographica, and G. ouachitensis) were
common and widely distributed, their listing was necessary in order
that trade in the other more vulnerable species could be effectively
controlled. In subsequent discussions, the International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) asked the Service to remove those
three species from the proposal, if the range States of the other nine
species agreed to take certain actions that would result in the same
level of protection being achieved that was intended by the Service's
proposed listing. In response, the Service developed a list of State
actions it deemed necessary to fulfill the intended purpose and agreed
to remove the three species from the proposal, if the States would
agree to engage in dialogue about implementing the needed actions. If
the range States respond positively to the Service's position, the
Service will amend its proposal accordingly at COP10. Subsequently, if
the envisioned protection is not afforded the nine more vulnerable
species, the Service will reconsider proposing the remaining three
species for inclusion in either Appendix II or Appendix III.
The proposal to include Hydrastis canadensis (goldenseal) in
Appendix II, which was submitted to the CITES Secretariat by the United
States on January 10, 1997, for consideration by the other Parties at
COP10 (see 62 Federal Register 18559, April 16, 1997), is being revised
to exclude the finished pharmaceutical products (i.e., the end-product
medicinals), so the annotation would read: ``Roots, rhizomes or
rootstocks, and specimens recognizable as being parts thereof, as well
as powder thereof in bulk''. The listing would also have the standard
exclusions such as seeds, as specified in 50 CFR Part 23.23(d).
The possibility of an amendment to not regulate all parts and
derivatives of this species was presented in the proposal (Section 7.1)
and the April 16, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 18571). The Service
believes that this lesser regulation, which would include raw powder
still in the manufacturing process but not the finished products for
the consumer such as capsules, is sufficient to begin a cooperative
endeavor for the conservation of goldenseal. Should it be found with
experience that this is insufficient regulation, a new CITES proposal
to include other parts or derivatives could be presented to the Parties
to consider, and would be announced in some future Federal Register
with a similar process for comments from the public.
Comments Received
A public meeting held on April 25, 1997, provided opportunities for
comments from organizations and the general public on the tentative
positions published in the April 17, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR
18731). These meetings were attended by 33 non-Federal-government
individuals, representing 24 non-government organizations, one embassy,
one foreign government agency, and three private businesses. Some of
these attendees did not comment, and some followed up their verbal
comments with written statements. Nineteen additional organizations,
one business, and five unaffiliated individuals provided substantive
written comments during the comment period on species proposals.
Most of the animal proposals received comment from at least one
organization. The proposals receiving the greatest attention were those
on elephants, whales, brown bear, white rhinoceros, vicuna, hawksbill
sea turtle, and map turtles (the amendment being considered for the
U.S. proposal). Written comments on plant species were received from
three organizations and one specialist in certain aspects of plants.
Cumulatively, all plant proposals were addressed by commenters, with
the most comments concerning one or more of the proposals on cacti.
The Service has prepared a summary of public comments entitled
``Assessment of Comments on Species Listing Proposals.'' The separate
development of this document, in keeping with past practice of the
Service, allows for more timely and less expensive publication in the
Federal Register. Although biological and trade information received
from individuals and organizations after the comment period expired is
not referenced in this document, all such information was considered on
the basis of its scientific and/or technical merit. The ``Assessment of
Comments on Species Listing Proposals'' is available from the Office of
Scientific Authority upon request.
Summary of Positions
As a consequence of (a) careful review and analysis of public
comments and (b) new information that has become available from a
variety of other sources since publication of tentative positions in
the earlier Federal Register (62 FR 18731), some positions have been
changed. Nine changes relate to animal listing proposals. Six of these
(related to brown bear, vicuna, and Nile crocodile) involve negotiating
positions previously ``under review'' and three (on vicuna annotations
and South American curassows) involve reversals of position. Two
changes involve plant listing proposals. One (on cut flowers of various
families) involves a reversal of position; and one (on several taxa or
groups of commonly propagated plants) involves a position formerly
``under review.'' The latter involves a detailed review and analysis
prepared by the Service that will be provided to interested Parties at
COP10. All changes in position since the previous notice were made on
the basis of new information, including information provided through
the public comment process.
The negotiating positions presented in the following table are
based upon (a) the best available biological and trade information
available to the Service at this time, (b) the criteria adopted at COP9
for listing species in the Appendices (Resolution Conf. 9.24), (c)
Confs. 3.15 and 8.22 on ranching, and (d) Conf. 9.18 on regulation of
trade in plants. Rationale for (and/or commentary on) each current
position is presented in footnotes referenced in the table. In some
cases, only the rationale for a position has changed from that
presented in the previous notice. The bases for some positions,
particularly those that have changed since the
[[Page 31056]]
previous notice, are further explained in the separate ``Assessment of
Comments on Species Listing Proposals.''
Although this notice sets forth the negotiating positions of the
United States at COP10, new information that becomes available during a
COP can often lead to modifications in positions. Support or opposition
to particular proposals may depend on whether certain questions about
them are answered satisfactorily at the meeting. At COP10, the U.S.
delegation will disclose all position changes and the rationale for
them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Proposed amendment Proponent U.S. position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
Order Diprotodontia:
Burramys parvus (Mountain Deletion from Appendix II...... Australia....... Support.\1\
pygmy possum).
Dendrolagus bennettianus Deletion from Appendix II...... Australia....... Support.\1\
(Bennett's tree kangaroo).
Dendrolagus lumholtzi Deletion from Appendix II...... Australia....... Support.\1\
(Lumholtz's tree
kangaroo).
Order Xenarthra:
Chaetophractus nationi Inclusion in Appendix I........ Bolivia......... Support.\1\
(Hairy armadillo).
Order Cetacea:
Eschrichtius robustus Transfer of the Eastern Pacific Japan........... Oppose.\2\
(Gray whale). stock from Appendix I to II.
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Transfer of the Okhotsk Sea Japan........... Oppose.\2\
(Minke whale). West Pacific and the Southern
Hemisphere stocks from
Appendix I to II.
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Transfer of the Northeast Norway.......... Oppose.\2\
(Minke whale). Atlantic and the North
Atlantic Central stocks from
Appendix I to II.
Balaenoptera edeni Transfer of the North Pacific Japan........... Oppose.\2\
(Bryde's whale). Western stock from Appendix I
to II.
Order Carnivora:
Ursus arctos (Brown bear). Transfer of all Asian and Bulgaria and Oppose.\3\
European populations from Jordan.
Appendix II to I.
Ursus arctos (Brown bear). Transfer of all Asian and Finland......... Oppose.\3\
European populations from
Appendix II to I.
Panthera onca (Jaguar).... Establishment of annual export Venezuela....... Oppose.\4\
quotas for hunting trophies of
zero in 1997, 1998, and 1999
and of 50 thereafter.
Order Proboscidea:
Loxodonta africana Transfer of the Botswanan Botswana, Under review.6,7,8
(African elephant). population from Appendix I to Namibia, and
II, with certain annotations 5. Zimbabwe.
Loxodonta africana Transfer of the Namibian Botswana, Under review.6,8,10
(African elephant). population from Appendix I to Namibia, and
II, with certain annotations Zimbabwe.
\9\.
Loxodonta africana Transfer of the Nimbabwean Botswana, Under review.6,8,12
(African elephant). population from Appendix I to Namibia, and
II, with certain annotations Zimbabwe.
\11\.
Order Perissodactyla:
Ceratotherium simum simum Amendment to annotation 503 in South Africa.... Oppose.\13\
(Southern white the CITES Appendices) to allow
rhinoceros). trade in parts and derivatives
but with a zero export quota.
Order Artiodactyla:
Pecari tajacu (Collared Deletion from Appendix II Mexico.......... Oppose.\14\
peccary). (Mexican population).
Vicugna vicugna (Vicuna).. Annotated transfer of certain Argentina....... Oppose.16,17,18
populations to Appendix II
\15\.
Vicugna vicugna (Vicuna).. Annotated transfer of certain Bolivia......... Under review. 18,20
populations to Appendix II
\19\.
Vicugna vicugna (Vicuna).. Amendment to annotation 504 in Peru............ Support.\21\
the CITES Appendices to
replace the words ``VICUNANDES-
CHILE'' and ``VICUNANDES-
PERU'' with the words ``VICUNA-
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN''.
Vicugna vicugna (Vicuna).. Amendment to annotation 504 (in Peru............ Oppose.\18\
the CITES Appendices list) to
allow also the countries that
are members of the Vicuna
Convention to utilize the term
VICUNA-PAIS DE
ORIGENARTESANIA, along with
the authorized trademark, on
luxury handicrafts and knitted
articles made of wool sheared
from live vicunas from
Appendix II populations.
Elaphurus davidianus (Pere Inclusion in Appendix II....... Argentina and Support.\1\
David's deer). China.
Bison bison athabascae Transfer from Appendix I to II Canada.......... Under review.\22\
(Wood bison). in accordance with
precautionary measure B.2.b of
Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4.
Bos javanicus (Banteng)... Inclusion in Appendix I........ Thailand........ Support.1,23
Bubalus arnee (Water Include In Appendix I.......... Thailand........ Support.\1\
buffalo).
[[Page 31057]]
Ovis ammon nigrimontana Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
(Kara Tau argali).
Birds
Order Galliformes:
Pauxi pauxi (Northern Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
helmeted curassow).
Pauxi unicornis (Horned Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
curassow).
Order Gruiformes:
Turnix melanogaster (Black- Deletion from Appendix II...... Australia....... Oppose.\24\
breasted buttonquail).
Pedionomus torquatus Deletion from Appendix II...... Australia....... Support.\1\
(Plains wanderer).
Gallirallus australis Deletion from Appendix II...... New Zealand..... Support.\1\
hectori (Eastern weka
rail).
Order Psittaciformes:
Amazona agilis (Black- Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
billed parrot).
Amazona viridigenalis (Red- Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
crowned parrot.
Cacatua sulphurea (Lesser Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
sulphur-crested cockatoo).
Eunymphicus cornutus Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Oppose.\25\
uvaeensis (Ouvea horned
parakeet).
Vini kuhlii (Kuhl's Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
lorikeet).
Vini peruviana (Tahitian Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
lorikeet).
Vini ultramarina Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
(Ultramarine lorikeet).
Order Coraciiformes:
Aceros waldeni (Writhed- Transfer from Appendix II to I. Germany......... Support.\1\
billed hornbill.
Order Passeriformes:
Leiothrix argentauris Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
(Silver-eared mesia).
Leiothrix lutea (Red- Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
billed leiothrix).
Liocichla omeiensis (Omei Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
Shan liocichla).
Tangara fastuosa (Seven- Inclusion in Appendix II....... Germany and the Support.\1\
colored tanager). Netherlands.
Amandava formosa (Green Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
avadavat).
Padda oryzivora (Java Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
sparrow.
Gracula religiosa (Hill Include in Appendix II......... Netherlands and Support.\1\
mynah). the Philippines.
Reptiles
Order Testudinata:
Callagur borneoensis Inclusion in Appendix II....... Germany......... Support.\1\
(Painted terrapin).
Eretmochelys imbricata Transfer of the Cuban Cuba............ Oppose.\14\
(Hawksbill sea turtle). population from Appendix I to
II with certain annotations
\26\.
Order Crocodylia:
Caiman latirostris (Broad- Transfer of the Argentine Argentina....... Under review.\27\
snouted caiman). population from Appendix I to
II, pursuant to resolution on
ranching.
Crocodylus niloticus (Nile Maintenance of the Malagasy Madagascar...... Oppose.\28\
crocodile). population in Appendix II,
pursuant to resolution on
ranching.
Crocodylus niloticus (Nile Establishment of an annual Tanzania........ Oppose.\29\
crocodile). export quota of 1,000 skins
and 100 hunting trophies from
wild animals for the years
1998-2000.
Crocodylus niloticus (Nile Maintenance of the Ugandan Uganda.......... Support.\30\
crocodile). population in Appendix II,
pursuant to resolution on
ranching.
Order Sauria:
Varanus bengalensis Transfer of the population of Bangladesh...... Oppose.\14\
(Indian monitor). Bangladesh from Appendix I to
II subject to annual export
quotas of 150,000 skins in
1997 and 225,000 in 1998 and
1999.
Varanus flavescens (Yellow Transfer of the population of Bangladesh...... Oppose.\14\
monitor). Bangladesh from Appendix I to
II subject to annual export
quotas of 100,000 skins in
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Amphibians
Order Anura:
Mantella bernhardi (Golden Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
mantella).
[[Page 31058]]
Mantella cowani (Golden Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
mantella).
Mantella haraldmeieri Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
(Golden mantella).
Mantella viridis (Golden Inclusion in Appendix II....... Netherlands..... Support.\1\
mantella).
Mollusks
Class Gastropoda:
Paryphanta spp. (New Deletion from Appendix II...... Switzerland..... Support.\1\
Zealand amber snails).
Other Animal Proposals
Any Appendix II species Amendment to the relevant Switzerland..... Support.\31\
annotated to limit the trade annotations of Appendix II
to certain types of specimens. species annotated to limit the
trade to certain types of
specimens, to include the
following wording: ``All other
specimens shall be deemed to
be specimens of species
included in Appendix I and the
trade in them shall be
regulated accordingly''.
Plants--General
Araliaceae: Panax Amend the Appendix II listing Switzerland..... Support.32,33
quinquefolius (American of this species (cf. current
ginseng). annotation #3), to include
only the following parts:
``Roots and specimens
recognizable as being parts of
roots''.
Cactaceae spp. (Cacti): Amend the Appendix II listing Mexico.......... Support.\1\,6,34
Mexican cacti. for this family (cf. current
annotation #4), to include
seeds of cacti from Mexico,
except those seeds obtained
from artificial propagation in
Production Units.
Leguminosae (Fabaceae): Amend the Appendix II listing Switzerland..... Support.\35\
Pericopsis elata of these two species (cf.
(Afrormosia), and Meliaceae: current annotation #5), to
Swietenia mahagoni (Caribbean include only the following
mahogany). parts: ``Logs, sawn wood, and
veneer sheets''.
Proteaceae: Orothamnus zehyeri Transfer from Appendix I to South Africa.... Support.\1\
(Marsh-rose). Appendix II, in accordance
with precautionary measure
B.2.b) of Resol. Conf. 9.24,
Annex 4.
Protea odorata (Ground-rose or Transfer from Appendix I to South Africa.... Oppose.\14\,24,36
Swartland sugarbush). Appendix II, in accordance
with precautionary measure
B.2.b) of Resol. Conf. 9.24,
Annex 4.
Scrophulariaceae: Picrorhiza Include in Appendix II, along India........... Support.\1\, 33
kurrooa (Kutki). with only the following parts
\37\: Roots [i.e., rhizomes/
rootstocks] and readily
recognizable parts thereof.
Theaceae: Camellia chrysantha, Delete from Appendix II........ China........... Support.\1\
which is Camellia petelotii
in part (Golden-flowered
camellia).
Valerianaceae: Nardostachys Include in Appendix II, along India........... Support.\1\, 33
grandiflora (= Nardostachys with only the following parts
jatamansi misapplied) \37\: Roots [i.e., rhizomes/
(Himalayan nard or spikenard). rootstocks] and readily
recognizable parts thereof.
Plants--Artificial Propagation
Families other than Amend the listings of most Switzerland..... Support.\38\
Orchidaceae (Orchids). plant families now in Appendix
II (current annotations #1,
#2, #4, and #8), to also
exclude the following part:
Cut flowers of artificially
propagated plants.
Cactaceae spp. (Cacti): (1) Amend the Appendix II listing Denmark......... Oppose.\41\
Hybrid Easter cactus; (2) for this family (cf. current
Christmas cactus, Crab annotation #4), to exclude
cactus; (3) Red cap cactus, artificially propagated
Oriental moon cactus; and (4) specimens of the following
Bunny ears cactus. hybrids and/or cultivars: (1)
Hatiora graeseri (= H.
gaertneri H. rosea); (2)
Schlumbergera (= Zygocactus)
hybrids and cultivars [sic]
\39\ (S. truncata cultivars,
and its hybrids with S.
opuntioides [= S. exotica], S.
orssichiana, and S.
russelliana [= S. buckleyi]);
(3) Gymnocalycium mihanovichii
cultivars (those lacking
chlorophyll, grafted \40\);
and (4) Opuntia microdasys.
Euphorbiaceae: Succulent Amend the Appendix II listing Denmark......... Oppose.\41\
Euphorbia spp. (Succulent of succulent Euphorbia spp.,
euphorbs): Three-ribbed milk with an annotation to exclude
tree. artificially propagated
specimens of Euphorbia trigona
cultivars\42\.
Primulaceae: Cyclamen spp. Amend the Appendix II listing Denmark......... Oppose.\41\
(Cyclamens): Florist's of Cyclamen spp., with an
cyclamen. annotation to exclude
artificially propagated
specimens of the hybrids and
cultivars of Cyclamen
persicum, except when traded
as dormant tubers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The listing, uplisting, downlisting, or delisting of this taxon (or parts in the case of some plants)
appears to be consistent with the relevant biological, trade, and precautionary criteria of Resolution Conf.
9.24.
[[Page 31059]]
\2\ The United States continues to support the 1978 request from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to
take all possible measures to support the IWC ban on commercial whaling for certain species and stocks of
whales and therefore opposes the transfer of this species from Appendix I to Appendix II.
\3\ The proposal from Bulgaria and Jordan defers to the details presented in the proposal from Finland. Although
it is clear that some of the European or Asian populations of this species not presently included in Appendix
I meet the criteria for Appendix I, the United States is not convinced by the proposal that the brown bear
population of Russia qualifies. The Russian population is subject to a managed sport harvest that appears to
be in itself sustainable, but this population in particular is also prone to illegal take for medicinal
products. Unless Russia supports the proposal and there is no compelling objection from other range states,
the United States opposes the proposal as written. However, the United States would support an amended
proposal that addresses specific range state populations (i.e., all members of the species within specified
national boundaries) meeting the biological criteria for Appendix I, if the proposal is supported by the
relevant range state(s).
\4\ The proposal acknowledges that the jaguar population proposed for phased-in trophy-hunting may be the most
threatened population in the country. The United States opposes this proposal without (a) a more convincing
case that trophy hunting will not add to existing pressure on the jaguar population and (b) a management plan
involving comprehensive population monitoring in the affected area.
\5\ Annotated to allow: (a) the direct export of registered stocks of whole raw tusks of Botswana origin to one
trading partner (Japan) subject to annual quotas of 12.68 t. in 1998 and 1999; (b) international trade in
hunting trophies; and (c) international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations.
\6\ The proposal presents biological information that supports the proposed action.
\7\ The Panel of Experts report on this proposal noted deficiencies in the record-keeping system for the ivory
stockpile and showed there is no clear plan for use of ivory revenues to benefit elephant conservation. It
also noted the existence of some movement of ivory through the country. The United States has concerns about
these reported deficiencies and about the adequacy of trade controls in the importing country.
\8\ The United States is consulting other African elephant range states to determine whether adoption of this
proposal by the Parties would cause conservation concerns in other portions of the species' range.
\9\ Annotated to allow: (a) the direct export of registered stocks of whole raw tusks of Namibian origin owned
by the government of Namibia to one trading partner (Japan) that will not reexport, subject to annual quotas
that will not exceed 6900 kg. between September 1997 and August 1998 and between September 1998 and August
1999; (b) international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations for non-commercial
purposes; and (c) international trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes.
\10\ Although noting there is probably some movement of ivory through the country, the Panel of Experts reported
satisfactory to excellent internal management controls in Namibia and an excellent legal structure for
establishing a conservation fund with ivory stock sale revenues. The Panel concluded that the proposal would
likely benefit elephant conservation in Namibia. The United States has concerns about the adequacy of trade
controls in the importing country.
\11\ Annotated to allow: (a) the direct export of registered stocks of whole raw tusks to one trading partner
(Japan) subject to annual quotas of 10 t. in 1998 and 1999; (b) international trade in hunting trophies; (c)
international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; (d) international trade in non-
commercial shipments of leather articles and ivory carvings; and (e) export of hides.
\12\ The Panel of Experts noted deficiencies in trade enforcement controls in Zimbabwe, including failure to
prevent illegal exports of large commercial shipments of worked ivory, and showed there is no clear plan for
use of ivory revenues to benefit elephant conservation. It also noted the existence of significant movement of
ivory through the country. The United States has concerns about these reported deficiencies and about the
adequacy of trade controls in the importing country.
\13\ While acknowledging the excellent record of the government of South Africa in restoring populations of this
species, the United States is concerned about potential detrimental effects of re-opening a legal
international trade in rhinoceros horn. The United States has invested considerable effort into encouraging
use of alternatives to rhinoceros horn derivatives in traditional Asian medicines.
\14\ The proposal does not present sufficient biological information to justify the listing, uplisting,
downlisting, or delisting as proposed, based on the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24.
\15\ Transfer of the population of the Province of Jujuy and of the semicaptive populations of the Provinces of
Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La Rioja, and San Juan, Argentina, from Appendix I to II, with an annotation to allow
only the international trade in wool sheared from live vicunas, and in cloth and manufactured items made
thereof, under the mark, ``VICUNA-ARGENTINA.''
\16\ Although the population may no longer meet the biological criteria for Appendix I, the proposal does not
yet satisfy the precautionary measures of Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 9.24. The proposal does not clearly
describe a population monitoring program, does not demonstrate either local incentives for conservation or the
existence of effective controls on production and export of products, and does not present sufficient detail
to indicate transparency in the vicuna conservation fund.
\17\ The United States is opposed to international trade in raw wool during the early phases of a vicuna
downlisting, before a management plan has been implemented and shown to be effective, unless convincing
safeguards are demonstrated by the proponent.
\18\ The United States is concerned about the risks of large quantities of luxury handicrafts and knitted
articles derived from vicuna wool leaving the countries of origin without CITES controls, because of the CITES
personal effects exemption.
\19\ Transfer of the populations of the Conservation Units of Mauri-Desaguadero, Ulla Ulla, and Lipez-Chicas,
Bolivia, from Appendix I to II, with an annotation to allow only the international trade in cloth and
manufactured items made thereof, under the mark, ``VICUNA-BOLIVIA.''
\20\ The proposal presents excellent population data and a well conceived approach to development of management
plans and follow-through monitoring of the effectiveness of vicuna management in different socio-economic
regimes. The United States considers this proposal to be under review until the report on exports of vicuna
cloth at COP10 is presented and evaluated. Despite the quality of the proposal, the United States does not
believe that trade in vicuna products from Bolivia is warranted until the proposed management plan is
operational and the Parties have an opportunity to consider other than a zero quota for vicuna products, and
provided that export will be limited initially to easily controlled products.
\21\ The United States sees no difficulties with such a change in the labeling of approved products.
\22\ Because of the remote isolation of the wild population, and because of the risk of disease spreading to
captive populations if wild animals are introduced, it is highly unlikely that trade in wood bison presently
in captivity would be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. Nonetheless, the species appears
to meet the biological criteria for retention in Appendix I. The proposal remains under review, while the
United States consults with Canada to obtain clarification on the species' status.
\23\ The United States supports the exclusion from the proposal of introduced populations remote from the
natural range, e.g., the introduced population of Australia.
\24\ Although trade is not recorded, the population is so small that retention in the Appendices would seem
advisable as a precautionary measure in the event illegal trade should ever occur.
\25\ Because the subspecies are extremely similar and occur in the same jurisdiction, the proposed split-listing
would be practically unenforceable and would be inconsistent with Annex 3 of Resolution Conf. 9.24.
\26\ Annotated to allow: (a) trade in current registered stocks of shell with one trading partner (Japan) that
will not re-export; and (b) export in one shipment per year, to the same partner, of shell marked in
compliance with Resolution Conf. 5.16, which allows definitive identification of origin, from a traditional
harvest (maximum 500 individuals per year) or from an experimental ranching program (anticipated: 50
individuals in the first year; 100 in the second year; and 300 in the third year).
\27\ The United States is not convinced that the necessary trade controls (including a tagging scheme in
accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.22) are in place to ensure that the ranching program will be beneficial to
the species and its continuing to seek clarification from Argentina.
\28\ The United States opposes the proposal on the basis that it does not provide a clear picture of the
regulatory and control measures that need to be in place in order to monitor ranching operations and control
trade. A modified proposal under quota provisions that would allow for export of 200 or fewer problem animals,
and a quota of 3,000-5,000 ranched animals as previously allowed, would be acceptable.
\29\ The United States opposes export of more than 200 nuisance animals and more than 100 sport trophies,
because the reporting requirement related to the previous approval by the Parties of export of 1,000 wild-
caught nuisance animals and 100 trophies does not present sufficient information to justify the level of
harvest and subsequent export of wild animals outside protected areas. The IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group
does not believe that the current wild harvest is sustainable and questions the accuracy of crocodile export
reports.
[[Page 31060]]
\30\ The United States supports the proposal, conditional upon Uganda agreeing to (a) monitor the effect of
release of juveniles in the wild and to adjust egg collection limits if necessary; (b) clarify the manner in
which the ranching program provides conservation benefits to the species; and (c) accepting a CITES
Secretariat review (in consultation with the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group) of the progress of the ranching
program prior to the next meeting of the Conference.
\31\ The United States believes the recommended language would help clarify annotated downlistings, such as that
of the South African population of the white rhinoceros, and reduce the possibility of misinterpreting or
abusing the downlisting process. However, annotation of the Appendices is a complex and confusing subject that
deserves a thorough review from legal and technical perspectives. Accordingly, the United States has prepared
a draft resolution on annotated downlistings, presently under internal review, and looks forward to detailed
discussion at COP10.
\32\ The current listing includes ``Roots and readily recognizable parts thereof''. The proposed revision is
considered to be a minor change, which would clarify and keep the intent of the 1985 proposal (at COP5) to
include the whole roots and the larger parts thereof, and to exclude minor pieces and processed products. Some
importing Parties have found that the current annotation can be interpreted too broadly.
\33\ The United States will recommend standardization of the inclusion of the parts for Panax quinquefolius
(American ginseng), Picrorhiza kurrooa (Kutki), and Nardostachys grandiflora (Himalayan nard), with the
annotation ``Roots, rhizomes or rootstocks, and specimens recognizable as being parts thereof''. This would
keep the intent of the proposal of Switzerland for Panax quinquefolius, and the intent of the proposals of
India for the other two species, while accommodating those two species' different morphology of having
rhizomes or rootstocks.
\34\ This proposal is considered necessary to assist enforcement of Mexican law that regulates the export of
seeds collected in the wild from cacti in Mexico. The Government of Mexico, at the November 1996 meeting of
the CITES Plants Committee, presented information on recent violations of Mexican law and over-collection of
cactus seeds of various taxa for export to various Party countries. The United States is discussing with
Mexico how they intend to administer the differentiation of seeds collected in the wild from seeds produced by
artificial propagation in their Production Units (i.e., nurseries). We understand that this proposal only
covers the populations of cacti in Mexico; it does not cover populations of Mexican cacti native beyond
Mexico, or specimens of Mexican cacti artificially propagated elsewhere than in Mexico.
\35\ These two current listings include ``Saw-logs, sawn wood, and veneers''. The proposed revision is
considered to be a minor change, which would correspond to the categories and definitions of HS codes 44.03
(logs), 44.06 and 44.07 (sawn wood), and 44.08 (veneer sheets) in the Harmonized System of the World Customs
Organization. The change was recommended by the CITES Timber Working Group.
\36\ There are so few individuals and populations of this species known in the wild, and so few artificially
propagated individuals available in cultivation, that continued inclusion of the species in Appendix I is
considered to be an appropriate precaution.
\37\ The proposal for this species discusses its rhizomes or rootstocks rather than botanical roots.
\38\ The proposal seeks to establish a new standard exclusion for Appendix II taxa. Presently, there is no known
cut-flower trade in the pertinent listed Appendix II taxa (i.e., the taxa other than orchids), either from the
wild or from flowers produced by artificial propagation (nor are there any complications in any trading of
their hybrids with Appendix I taxa). The conservation of species in the wild is therefore considered to be
unaffected by this proposed new standing listing for Appendix II (and probably Appendix III), to which
exceptions (i.e., inclusion of the cut flowers) can be made whenever warranted in future proposals for
particular taxa. Although the proposal did not address the taxa of Nepal in Appendix III, which also have
their listings standardized with the current annotation #1, we expect the Secretariat to encourage Nepal to
accept this new exclusion for those listings as well.
\39\ This proposal is considered to not include all taxa (or hybrids and cultivars) of Schlumbergera, but just
those listed in detail in the proposal and in this Federal Register notice. If this proposal goes forward, the
United States will seek clarification or an amendment to that more limited effect.
\40\ The proposal stated that the artificially propagated grafting stocks are mostly specimens of Hylocereus
species and Harrisia ``Jusbertii'', but these taxa (and any other cactus taxa that might be used as grafting
stock) were not directly presented for similar exclusion. The United States will consider supporting this
portion of the proposal, if an amendment to specify the taxa of the grafting stocks, for example only Harrisia
``Jusbertii'', Hylocereus trigonus Hylocereus undatus can be adopted.
\41\ Although the stipulated taxa are artificially propagated extensively, the risk either to other taxa in the
wild or to pertinent natural taxa needs consideration. The burden for enforcement would be significantly
complicated by excluding these artificially propagated specimens. Nevertheless, minimizing or reducing the
implementation burden, and the regulation of artificially propagated specimens, are worthy goals, when there
is no risk to taxa in the wild.
\42\ This proposal is considered not to include Euphorbia hermentiana, which we understand is not a synonym of
Euphorbia trigona.
Future Actions
Amendments are adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Parties
present and voting. All species amendments adopted will enter into
effect 90 days after the close of COP10 (i.e., on September 18, 1997)
for the United States, unless a reservation is entered. Article XV of
CITES enables any Party to exempt itself from implementing CITES for
any particular species, if it enters a reservation with respect to that
species. A Party desiring to enter a reservation must do so during the
90-day period immediately following the close of the meeting at which
the Parties voted to include the species in Appendix I or II. Soon
after COP10, the Service plans to publish a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the final decisions of the Parties on all proposed
amendments to the Appendices. If the United States should decide to
enter any reservation, this action must be transmitted to the
Depositary Government (Switzerland) by September 18, 1997. The United
States has never entered a reservation to a CITES listing. It would
consider doing so only if evidence is presented to show that
implementation of an amendment would be contrary to the interests or
laws of the United States.
Comments on Possible Reservations
The Service invites comments and recommendations from the public
concerning reservations that may be taken by the United States on any
amendments to the Appendices adopted by the Parties at COP10. The
Service's past practice has been to solicit public comments only after
the COP, in the notice that announces the actions of the Parties at the
COP on the proposed species amendments. However, because of the short
time available for taking reservations, the Service is now soliciting
comments on possible reservations on any proposed species amendment
that may be adopted. Although the Service will re-solicit comments
after COP10 if time is available, this present notice may be the only
request for such comments. Recommendations or comments regarding
reservations must be received by August 15, 1997. If the United States
should enter any reservations, they will be announced in the same
Federal Register notice that incorporates the listing decisions of the
Parties into the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR Part 23).
Reservations, if entered, may do little to relieve importers in the
United States from the need for foreign export permits, because the
Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) make it a Federal
offense to import into the United States any animals taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of foreign conservation laws. If a
foreign country has enacted CITES as part of its law, and that country
has not taken a reservation with regard to the animal or plant, or its
parts or derivatives, the United States (even if it had taken a
reservation on a species) would continue to require CITES documents as
a condition of import. Any reservation by the United States would
provide exporters in this country with little relief from the need for
U.S. export documents. Importing countries that are Party to CITES
would require CITES-equivalent documentation from the United States,
even if it enters a
[[Page 31061]]
reservation, because the Parties have agreed to allow trade with non-
Parties (including reserving Parties) only if they issue documents
containing all the information required in CITES permits or
certificates. In addition, if a reservation is taken on a species
listed in Appendix I, the species should still be treated by the
reserving Party as in Appendix II according to Conf. 4.25, thereby
still requiring CITES documents for export of these species. It is the
policy of the United States that commercial trade in Appendix I species
for which a country has entered a reservation undermines the
effectiveness of CITES.
This notice was prepared by Drs. Marshall A. Howe and Bruce
MacBryde, Office of Scientific Authority, under authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 2, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 97-14806 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}